Politis v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 1:2010cv11773 - Document 57 (D. Mass. 2014)

Court Description: Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered denying 49 Motion for Sanctions; granting 52 Motion to Seal; granting 56 Motion to Seal ( Copy of Opinion and Order mailed out to plaintiff). (Lyness, Paul)

Download PDF
Politis v. GlaxoSmithKline Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11773-GAO DEBORAH POLITIS, Plaintiff, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER December 11, 2014 O’TOOLE, D.J. On February 6, 2014, this Court entered an order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties (dkt. no. 40). On March 6, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that order (dkt. no. 42). That day she also filed a “Motion to Seal” (dkt. no. 41), to which were attached as exhibits a “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and a “Motion to Reconsider.” The Court subsequently granted the “Motion to Seal.” The normal docketing practice regarding proposed sealed filings is for a party to separately file the pertinent document under seal once permission has been granted. The “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and the “Motion to Reconsider” were not separately filed under seal in accordance with that practice, and as a result neither was recorded as a pending motion in the electronic docket. Additionally, because the “Motion to Seal” and the attached exhibits (including the other “Motions”) were themselves sealed, counsel for the defendant was not able to access them electronically and therefore to know what they contained. Dockets.Justia.com The Court of Appeals determined that the notice of appeal would not become effective until this Court disposed of the “Motion to Reconsider,” which the Court of Appeals apparently deemed to be pending. Since then, the plaintiff has also moved to seal an affidavit in support of the “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and the “Motion to Reconsider.” That Motion to Seal (dkt. no. 56) is GRANTED and the affidavit is treated as filed under seal. Treating as pending the “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and the “Motion to Reconsider,” this Court now DENIES both motions. The prior order enforcing the settlement agreement (dkt. no. 40) is confirmed, and the parties are again directed to perform their respective obligations as set forth therein. Finally, the defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (dkt. no. 49) is DENIED. The plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (dkt. no. 52) is GRANTED, and, treating Exhibit 1 thereto as a filed motion, that Motion for Time Extension (dkt. no. 52-1) is MOOT. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.